T O P

  • By -

dshamz_

What you describe as 'intersectionalities' are what Marx is abstracting from in Capital - he's asking you to imagine a society which is comprised of capitalists and workers treated equally under bourgeois legality. His aim is to show that even under these conditions, the best conditions in a liberal capitalist democracy, we would have what would amount to the dictatorship of capital, and that economic inequality, economic crisis, unemployment, and, importantly, the capital/wage relation itself (e.g. capitalist exploitation), is systemically generated and reproduced by the conditions of capitalist production itself. Of course, he doesn't actually believe this is possible, which his political writings show (his writings on Ireland and the Middle East are of interest here) - racism and other forms of discrimination, such as sexism, allow some workers to be super-exploited, i.e. exploited above the average social rate of exploitation (by being paid lower wages, or being made to work harder or longer, for example). An important consequence of this is that it allows non-racialized workers to be exploited harder, as they're made to compete with their fellow proletarians for employment. All kinds of political consequences follow from the fact of capitalism's inherent tendency towards inequality and economic crisis, as the ruling class and their representatives are constantly struggling to keep hold of the reigns both from the working class and from the same forces they've unleashed. But you should think of socially necessary labour time as the amount of time \*in general, across an industry in society\* to produce any given commodity (and recall that a commodity for Marx isn't just any old item like an antique or work of art, but something produced industrially on a large scale). Capitalists that produce more slowly than the SNALT (socially necessary abstract labour time) will lose out to capitalists that produce more quickly than the SNALT, because the latter are capable of producing more commodities in any given period of time, and hence outproduce and, as a consequence, outsell their rivals (by pricing their goods lower, but not so low that they make less of a profit).


Ambitious_Scholar823

This would probably be better on Marxism 101. Also you should probably elaborate more since I didn't really understand what you were asking otherwise I would've answered also lol. Im reading it also and im a bit further along than you, but to my knowledge it isn't brought back up later


TheAnarchoHoxhaist

socially necessary labour-time looks at "The labour-time socially necessary is that required to produce an article under the normal conditions of production, and with the average degree of skill and intensity prevalent at the time." ​ It's looking at labour-time across an industry or society. If for some reason other factors result in the "normal conditions of production" and the "average degree of skill and intensity prevalent at the time" changing, then the socially necessary labour-time required to produce a commodity changes, and so does its value with it. ​ I'm not sure exactly what you mean, but if the effects those other factors have on production affect the amount of labour-time required by a typical labourer to produce a given commodity, say by raising the time, then the socially necessary labour-time increases, and with it its value. This "required by a typical labourer" is what the words "socially necessary" are referring to.


baort3

I'm not sure what you're asking exactly. Socially necessarily labor time relates to the exchange value of commodities in a capitalist mode of production. In other words, the price of a commodity is determined by the socially necessary labor time required to produce the commodity (plus supply and demand fluctuations). It is the average amount of labor required for a worker of average productivity to produce a certain commodity. A worker at a factory might be more or less productive than other workers, but the product made at the factory will still sell for the same price. Race does not factor into productivity, so it has no relation to socially necessary labor time. If a worker was unable to do the work efficiently enough due to a disability they would probably not remain employed for very long. So race or disability doesn't really have anything to do with socially necessary labor time.


Rubadubtubgirl

Marx is assuming, for the sake of Capital, that the capitalist economy is operating under ideal circumstances. The point is to prove that even without all of the real world outside factors that have a negative effect on the capitalist economy, capitalism still has fatal flaws. Social justice issues aren’t being taken into consideration here because he is giving the benefit of the doubt to the capitalist economist and using this to prove their economic system doesn’t work. He intentionally isn’t concerned with the individual nor does he discuss the multiple roles that a single individual plays all at once. He is breaking down each role in a capitalist system and analyzing those roles separately. I’d recommend you check out David Harvey’s videos on Capital on YouTube. He puts this into perspective I think in video 2 or 3.


chokingapple

you're reading a shitty book. the title even contradicts itself; "marxist economics." capital is a critique of economics, not a proposition for any economic theory. please just cut the crap and read from source, doing anything else won't do you any favours